Doom and gloom from Amendment 1 foes

Conjuring up images of burning homes and school children dodging traffic, opponents of Amendment 1 blasted the tax cut proposal at a fire station down the street from the Governor's Mansion.

"It is a dangerous amendment," said Bob Carver, president of the Florida Professional Firefighters (pictured). Carver said 250 firefighters have already been laid off under the Legislature's tax rollback and suggested the new proposal, on the Jan, 29 ballot, will have a disastrous cumulative effect on response time and lead to higher insurance costs.

The plan is expected to cut taxes (and city, county and school budgets) by $9.3-billion over five years.

Dawn Steward, legislative chairwoman of the 364,000-member Florida Parent-Teachers Association, asserted that cutbacks would lead to fewer crossing guards. "Our children need to be educated; we don't want them to be run over," she said.

Karen Woodall, who heads Florida is Our Home, poked at Gov. Charlie Crist and his fundraising efforts to pass Amendment 1. "The governor is counting on the support of Donald Trump, Florida's powerful special interests and millions of dollars," she said. We rely on the millions of voices that make up Florida is Our Home."

Carver said the union disagrees with Crist on the impact of the tax cut, but added the two sides would continue to work on other issues. "In fact, the governor had at the Mansion Santa Claus this year and it was a firefighter. And the governor asked Santa Claus (for) $2-billion to fund the state budget and Santa Claus said he'd try to help him with it."

Crist, meanwhile, made stops in Jacksonville and Orlando that were not on his schedule and not publicized to the media. He flew on a plane owned by Dr. Steven Scott of South Florida. Crist met with business interests and asked for financial support to pass the amendment, said Vivian Myrtetus, spokeswoman for Vote Yes on !.

The group has already sent out mailers, put up billboards and is planning to buy TV commercial time.

As the news conference wrapped up, a fire truck raced out of the station, providing a nice visual for the TV cameras. No word on how fast it made it to the fire.

Comments

guess not too many people showed up! They want lower property taxes.

Shave the beard-prevent a fire!

Is that George LeMieux sixth from the left and right behind the speaker? Just because he left the Governor's office doesn't mean he should now be against the amendment.

the fire and police backed Charlie since day 1, and this is the thanks they get...

Ladies and Gentlemen, your People's Governor.

After he's done with this, he will not hesitate for a second to throw all the Yes on 1 people under the bus for the sake of supporting another interest group.

Rollback taxes and spending to 2002 levels, and expand SOH to ALL property both residential and commercial.

Problem Solved!

My God! What did these counties do before 2000 when property valuations went through the roof? How did they function?

Before 2000 there were fewer homes and people to protect.

So, if your house catches on fire, do you want the firefighters to be there in 4 minutes or 10 minutes? That's the choice voters face on January 29.

[Maverick]

Scare tactics are all the 'Just Say No to Amendment 1' crowd have in their arsenal. Pathetic

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Today's Poll-Tested Buzzword Is: "Pathetic"

Pass it on.

Scare tactics are all the Just Say Yes to 1 crowd have in their arsenal.

Be VERY AFRAID of the BIG GOVERNMENT boogy man. He's gonna come and raise your taxes to fund those wasteful things like paving roads, catching and locking up bad guys and educating kids.

Fight back and take your money back from these bad bad big government bureaucrats and vote for 1.

1:31

You are an idiot. George isn't against the amendment. He just infiltrated the opposition.

[Ron]

There is a simple way to determine if you should vote or against any amendment:

If the unions oppose it, you should probably vote for it.

There's even a better way.

If Ron is for it; vote against it.

And continue to give the illegals who take our jobs free food, schooling, and health care at our expense so they can keep cutting Ron's lawn for $10!

... idiot

2:00
Not only the growth factor (as 2:40 pointed out)fire and police were paid a heck of a lot less - paid pathetically as a matter of fact! They are just now looking at decent salaries because of those "huge windfalls" in property tax collections. Look, the system we have is unfair, but this Amendment isn't going to fix the problem, just make it worse...or unconstitutional.

Side note:When people who actually risk their lives to protect us are paid less than you folks sitting on your rear blogging on the people's time...well I don't need to say more... you should be able to figure that much out.

SCARE TACTICS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPPORTERS THAT WANT TO CONTINUE SPENDING LIKE "DRUNKEN SAILORS"

[John]

What the heck are they using a taxpayer's property for to promote their agenda?

Get the heck off gov't property. You are endangering lives by delaying emergency services with this nonsense.
A fire station is there for emergengy services, not for campaigning.

Another union fiasco

I'm voting YES on Amendment 1.

-around $240 in property tax savings
-could save residents thousand with PORTABILITY
-for local government to stop spending like cash grow on trees

YES on 1 for me & my family

I'm voting YES on Amendment 1.

-around $240 in property tax savings
-could save residents thousand with PORTABILITY
-force local government to stop spending like cash grow on trees

YES on 1 for me & my family

[No Relief For Me]

VOTE NO -- not because our fire fighters and unions are trying to scare you into it. VOTE NO because Amendment 1 is unjust and immmoral.

NO TO PORTABILITY!! You want to keep your taxes low -- stay put. If you want to move, pay the same as everyone else. Portability is discrimination.

ALL BUYERS NEED A BREAK -- NOT JUST SOME!! It sickens me that our governor would endorse an unjust, immoral pathetic plan such as this.

VOTE NO and send our legislators back for REAL tax reform.

VOTE NO for your children. How will they afford a home one day???

[No Relief For Me]

IS THIS JUSTICE PEOPLE? 3 BUYERS WANT TO BUY THE SAME HOME....

BUYER 1 - $500,000 portable exemption
BUYER 2 - $100,000 portable exemption
BUYER 3 - $0 portable exemption

Based on 2% tax, each buyer saves the following each year on property taxes with their portable exemption.

BUYER 1 - $10,000
BUYER 2 - $2,000
BUYER 3 - $0

They all buy the same home and the richest buyer who made the most on the sale of his home gets the biggest tax break.

THIS IS A JOKE PEOPLE!!! THE RICH PEOPLE LOVE IT!! VOTE NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!

can someone make a cogent argument as to why I should support Amendment 1 without using the phrases "drunken sailor" "unions are for it so I am against" and other blathering talking points from the Governor?

jeez, I might actually vote for it, but on the grounds of good public policy, the opposition has a much more compelling argument.

No Relief For Me ,

IS THIS JUSTICE THAT FLORIDA PROPERTY OWNERS ARE PAYING THROUGH THE ROOF FOR LOCAL GOV'TS DRUNKEN SPENDING?

I'm voting YES, so is most people I know. Like Rubio & Crist said, this is still tax relief.
Plus portability is the meat in this amendment.

[No Relief For Me]

Is $240 a year really going to give you relief? If it makes you feel any better, due to the declining market, revenues will drop anyway when properties are reassessed at 2007 values.

VOTE NO because portability is unjust and immoral and if voted in will allow the advantaged the benefit of always paying less than their fair share. That means someone else will have to carry the burden and efforts for true viable reform will be impossible.

Some things are worth waiting for. If you want real relief, we must vote NO and send our legislators back to the drawing board. ALL buyers need relief, not just some.

Guess what people, there on Tax Payer Time. Look how much they need the money (to do more press conferences), shouldn't they be training for putting out fires?

[No Relief For Me]

to 7:33

Portability is the meat? Then it's tainted meat in my opinion. It is the unjust unmoral part of this amendment and what will devastate our economy if it passes.

Why should only SOME buyers received substantial exemptions when they purchase a new home, when EVERYONE is in need of those exemptions? These exemptions will vary depending on how much SOH benefit you have accumulated. Those in the highest value homes will have the largest exemptions and will get the biggest tax break.

VOTE NO TO DISCRIMINATION -- VOTE NO TO AMENDMENT 1.

No court has ever ruled Save Our Homes or Portability unconstitutional.

So YES on amendment 1.

Make Save Our Home portable!

There is a simple way to determine if you should vote or against any amendment:

If the unions oppose it, you should probably vote for it.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I AGREE, VOTE OPPOSITE OF UNIONS.

[No Relief For Me]

7:33....Constitutional or not, it is unjust and immoral. You are thinking of yourself only and not the good of our state. Portability jwill ensure inequality and unfairness in property taxes always. It will dig the hole so deep that we will never see relief for those most in need.

You want low taxes, stay put and don't move. SOH should be abolished, but that will never happen. Let's not make it worse and put SOH on steroids.

VOTE NO so your children will have an opportunity to afford a home one day.

VOTE NO so we stand a better chance at passing viable reform that will rejuvenate our economy.

VOTE NO because portability is discrimination.

[Sammy]

VOTE YES so your children will have an opportunity to afford a home one day.

VOTE YES so we have at least some relief

VOTE YES because of portability allows moving

[No Relief For Me]

Sammy

How will Amendment 1 allow your children to afford a home one day?

First time home buyers have 0 save-our-home benefits. They will receive no exemption, other than the $40,000 homestead exemption.

The median price of a home in Hillsborough County is over $200,000. Their taxable value will be $160,000 and taxes $3,200, and that is IF the millage rate does not rise. This Amendment does nothing to cap millage rates.

A buyer with signicant save-our-home benefits could purchase this same home and pay less than $500 in tax.

Tell me, how does that help your child? It only deepens the inequities in our system and will never allow for fair reform.

VOTE NO....
Demand viable reform www.cutpropertytaxesnow.com
Cap millage rates at 13.% (1.35%) NOW